The disapproval directed toward this guy is not because he gambled and lost. It's because he scammed people. It was wrong. If he had flown below the radar and become rich and successful, and later moved to a more respectable business strategy, it would have still been wrong. How did you read the discussion of this issue and misunderstand? Do you think all the moral disapproval expressed here is a sham? That we are just dumping on a loser and would have applauded him if he got away with it?